If men are obsolete, then women will soon be extinct — unless we rush down that ominous Brave New World path where women clone themselves by parthenogenesis, as famously do Komodo dragons, hammerhead sharks and pit vipers.

A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.

Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.

From my long observation, which predates the sexual revolution, this remains a serious problem afflicting Anglo-American society, with its Puritan residue. In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamour. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. In today’s punitive atmosphere of sentimental propaganda about gender, the sexual imagination has understandably fled into the alternate world of online pornography, where the rude but exhilarating forces of primitive nature rollick unconstrained by religious or feminist moralism.

It was always the proper mission of feminism to attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women. But surely it was and is possible for a progressive reform movement to achieve that without stereotyping, belittling or demonizing men. History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.

What is troubling in too many books and articles by feminist journalists in the U.S. is, despite their putative leftism, an implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture. The particular focused, clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite are presented as the highest desideratum, the ultimate evolutionary point of humanity. Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive.

But the triumphalism among some — like Hanna Rosin in her book, The End of Men, about women’s gains — seems startlingly premature. For instance, Rosin says of the sagging fortunes of today’s working-class couples that they and we had “reached the end of a hundred thousand years of human history and the beginning of a new era, and there was no going back.” This sweeping appeal to history somehow overlooks history’s far darker lessons about the cyclic rise and fall of civilizations, which as they become more complex and interconnected also become more vulnerable to collapse. The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.

After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again! Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf. Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall.

Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!

Hmm, you could use a refresher course in feminism, because you are a bit out of touch. Do they let anyone publish their articles here? If so, I'm sure other grossly unqualified people like Rush Limbaugh would like to write articles on feminism here, too.

With that said, I will contribute:

Why are you taking up the good 'ole European-hating-on-other-Europeans dialogue? Because it's really tiring and just doesn't speak to many people. It's like "HEY I HAVE LOTS OF PRIVILEGE AND YOU DO TOO SO I'M GOING TO BERATE YOU NOW AND IGNORE EVERYONE ELSE." Why? What is progressive about this? This article is written with a point of view that is bigoted and small.

On to the content-- What exactly do you think a woman is? Tell me, because intersexed children would like to know why you think it's okay to mutilate their bodies so that they can become one. It's so easy, being a woman, isn't it? We don't have exert our delicately framed bodies with manual labor. I'm quite thankful for the job market men so earnestly and honorably created and graciously allow us (white women) to participate in, while they toil away at back-breaking labor (illegal immigrants, that is). No one can deny the bliss of being denied childbirth (if that's something we could ever/can/want to do) until we are middle-aged and most likely sterile, because if we were so ashamedly spoiled for childbearing, men can help us with their wonderful new medical treatments which give us cancer and make us crazy and then we can be shamed for being overly emotional.

What's a man? Who are these magical men who created the world for us little ladies? Where are the bodies of the colored persons who they killed to make our wonderful society and those which they continue to kill as fuel?

This debate is irrelevant. Privilege is privilege and you've got enough to go around. Take a class in intersectionality, stop universalizing feminism as anti-male, and take a class at a community college or something. They teach women, too, you know. Maybe you can be a plumber. I'd like you better then.

First of all, stop looking at aggressive feminism groups, as horrible as it is, that stuff is all about rape and castration from women who had to go through that and can't get past the anger they hold inside towards men. You should feel sorry for them and be a better person and move on instead of arguing with a group who is having a tough battle in life. Feminism was not originally barbaric and man hating, it was originally organized to bring on equality. To be allowed to vote, because our opinions can make a difference too. You seem more interested in roles, not gender hating, so start feeding into the more positive feminism group ideas, because they aren't saying we don't need men, we obviously do need men for all the reasons you've stated... the problem is that men seem to think they only need women to serve them in aspects of cooking, nurturing children, having sex, and reproducing; under appreciation--that is why feminism developed. The men who don't get this, have highly logical brains, which makes them look at a women's role, as just a role, rather than a deeper role that serves earth and humanity as a whole, like a man's role that serves humanity in the way you described. You see, women have pride and are capable of great ideas too, and just because men make the ideas come to life when it comes to handy work, it doesn't give them the right to make up all the laws and orders. Women are better at peace making, social issues, humanities, psychology, healing, ect. All of those are needed to make the world a happier place and to bring human consciousness to a higher level. It is true that men live in the future and women live in the past. That being said, men forget about the past and make the same mistakes over and over while trying to cover it up with more inventions (prime example: take a look at relationship behaviour), whereas a woman will always remember what happened in detail, and use it for later. Ideas from women need to be included so that the two genders can bring the world to live in the present. Men need to learn that women have better intuitive abilities, and those abilities are parallel in equality with the logical abilities of a man. Haven't you ever noticed that logical, factual, only trusts science types of people, have the littlest intuition of them all? Intuition/abstract ideas (creativity), are needed just as much as practical thinking (invention/discovery), we need to combine the two and stop doing it one genders way so we can stop screwing up the balance of the world. Men need to learn to put trust into a woman's idea, so that she too not only feels appreciated, but can help to make a difference in the world with men side by side. Whoever said women don't care to feel as appreciated for their work as men do, are crazy for even thinking that's a possibility! Of course we do! It's just that women are more submissive and men are more dominant, which gives men a huge ego to not interfere with their work, and makes women back off feeling like they are worthless. Let me tell you a story... one time I wanted to make my very own first fire, and my boyfriend took over my creation instead of assisting me. Clear example of dominance vs. submission, and exactly what is going on the world today. Maybe women would take more pride in their roles, if their roles weren't put in a way by men that seems weak, demeaning, and brainless. Maybe men wouldn't see these roles as weak if they actually took the time to learn why these roles are needed for a higher purpose, and not just the way it is seen simply. Feminism is a good movement, because women are finally beginning to explain to men that they are needed just as much. Problem is angry feminism groups aren't communicating effectively, and they are silencing feminism ideas such as mine.

Listen I totally agree. I am not aware of but like one example of how feminism has turned to vilifying men. There are jerks. There are pervs. There are perps. There are malignant narcissists. But this Black Woman feels that, for the most part, our men are doing what they know best--albeit hampered some by faulty scripts and defective models--to demonstrate their desire to serve and improve society and for their children and for their womenfolk!

I am a feminist but I have never stopped loving men and have never been one to say I don't need them at all--like they are dispensable.

Nothing make me validates my femininity more and encourages its manifestation more than a "boss". For me, it's kinda like what Jill Scott said, "Talk strong, daddy, control your girl"--WHEW! This is a man who knows he's got me--not just sexually either--but he first loves himself and is secure enough to not have to PER-FORM about everything and doesn't try to own me. There's a balance. I like a man who can just BE; one who doesn't see it as necessary to throw himself around so much.

Thank you for this article. I support feminism to the point of equality, and have stood up for it often, but I have often felt the degradation that comes out of the mouths of many feminists. They lack honesty about men and about what men have done and will do for society for millions of years to come. I appreciate your words, because I believe this reverse sexism that has come out of most modern feminism is counter productive and honestly naive. I think you nailed this.

Tsk. After all these years... women really do not understand men at all; especailly western women. No species on this earth has been more appreciated or loved than human women and history would suggest through shifting belief structures alone that this is not the first time such a social shift has occurred between us.

I think the underlying warning peripheral to mens psyche is that there is a serious balance of under appreciation. Its not paranoia, more like something that is nagging for logical attention. Most men ignore it and wonder why they end up king hit by the women in their lives so often. Thats really what this article is about.

Men generally seek to better themselves and compete with the ghosts of their personal failings and women seek to gain a unification ignoring all imbalances. Its rather funny to think, for instance; that a man at work will make issue of his partners inequality and his partner in the same position will absolutely rationalize leaving him out on a limb.

It may come as some surprise to many women but men are not really ambitious at all, by not denying our natures we are actually driven by purposeful sense which is not sense at all. In fact all the logic is really so we don't have to fight out base natures and can continue to find some way to merge sense with peace. If I want an expensive car, I will get an expensive car but if I get an old heap of this and do it up, its because that is what i wanted and giving me an expensive car makes me wish I was driving the care I went out of my way to rebirth.

I'm not looking at the guy my female partner(?) decides to point out and wish I was him, I actually don't dare to know what motivates him and simply hope he is happy, I am just angry that she does not understand what motivates me. At that point she has her rationale, because there will be only one outcome.

Men share a strong internal dialogue that women sometimes glimpse. Its what makes her love him and eventually what will make her hate him; because inevitably she will attempt to infiltrate it. Its the process of persistent analyticism that women find refuge in that seems to always have men standing with their heads bobbing around for something to do, reminiscent of meerkats, that really annoys us.

Men generally applaud their partners drive to exceed and succeed. It can be enlightening. Feelings of inequity are not born of jealous rebuke but the disparagement of knowing with a certainty that she is not covering all the base level of factors, especailly that of other people as men are not generally in fear of their world they simply do not invite vulnerability into their sphere of influence. At that point we leave you.

Its not that men feel emasculated, its that they feel fundamentally disappointed; that on some level it seems like we keep going through this scenario and as far as most men know, this life is their first and only life, where does this subtext come from if not via some pre-history. How does a man feel appreciated by the women in his life or the women he shares his life with no man has ever experienced it.

I may not be as well versed in this topic as others in the comments, and trying to make sense of all the verbose debates going on is too difficult. But just wanted to ask...Isn't this as much about class as it is about gender politics? Like personally, I know a lot of educated guys who went to school, who work in office settings (safe, clean environments that the author mentions), and a lot of these guys wouldn't be caught dead working in manual labor fields. Which is fine! I'm not passing judgement--But the people who work in labor jobs are usually people who don't have access to education, come from lower income families, ect. And, to suggest that working class/low income females were not performing manual labor is a mistake, no? Sure women were not building roads next to men, but they worked in factories (WWII), cleaned houses, and many other jobs outside of the home. The author also suggests that new industrial machinations freed women from daily drudgery. Those creations were created by educated men--engineers, architects-- because most women weren't given access to higher education. Whose to say that if women did go to school at the time, they couldn't have come up with new industrial innovations as well?

Also, aren't we then belittling men who work in more "feminine" office jobs, especially the type of men who work in metropolitan areas like NYC? The paradox then is that most office jobs
are inherently very testosterone driven, competitive, like in the white
collar sector (Wall Street, Banking) due to how companies are run, and who runs them (men) and just the nature of our capitalistic econonmy. Another paradox is, if women were thriving in this line of work (office jobs) why are there still way less women in the upper management and executive positions than men? Sure, women work many office positions, but they usually remain in lower to mid level positions like assistants.

I have a hard time taking Paglia or Rosin seriously. The role of men is not dying in our society, it's just changing. Just like the role of women is changing. I'd like to think that if there was another apocalypse (It's kinda funny that such an extreme example was used), that our society would have at least advanced a tad, and that when my husband came home tired from a long day running away from wild animals while trying to get some berries for our family, I could say, "thanks babe, you look tired, how about you stay home for the rest of the week with the kids and I'll get us some berries and squirrels. But when I get my period at the end of the month, you can go back out." I mean, at that point it's about team work and survival, right?

Women and men in general are equal. But when it comes to difference between one man and another woman, result is very individual. Just for example compare Mother Teresa and Jeffrey Dahmer(disgusting serial killer).

There are some men who are standing in the shadow of one great woman, as much as there is some women who's standing in the shadow of great men. So if any of you men or women really don't want to be obsolete, here's advise - BE A GOOD HUMAN

Don't forget there are even some men and women who are great companions/lovers/friends... Different genders are fun and made for so much more than competing ;)

The idea that men are superior is an idea that harms both men and women everywhere by forcing standards upon them that may not adhere to their personal morals and may infringe upon their happiness.

Feminism is not just about women. Women are affected more greatly than men by this stigma, but they are in no way the only victims. Feminism is about human beings, and the fact that we are all born with rights and needs that should not be dictated by whether or not your sexual organs are inside or outside of your body.

Feminism does not condemn men. It condemns the social infrastructures in place that promote and encourage sexism. The fact that a women wrote this proves my point. It is engrained in us from birth that men are stronger and better than women.

Yes, throughout the majority of history, men have dominated the professional world. Yes it was almost entirely men who built our cities and nurtured the complex economic systems of the world. The point of feminism is to ask, "Why could a woman not have had a part in this?"

If it was truly about physical strength. If women were REALLY incapable of physical labor, then there would not be weightlifting competitions where women lift more weight than I, as a man, could ever hope to.

This brings to mind another point. The only way that this comment will be taken seriously is if it is noted that I am a male. If a woman were to have this opinion, she would automatically be seen as a raging man-hater who fills her time by chopping off penises to take away men's power. We are born and raised being forced to swallow the unrealistic notion that men are stronger and better than women.

This article prompted me to write this and post it to my facebook page...

The Last Stand of ManI am all about equality. I reject society’s method of seeking equality by removing what it means to be a man. I will watch the Notebook with you, once, but for Steel Magnolias, you are on your own.I will wear jeans, but they won’t be skinny. I will wear a scarf, but only when it is really cold. And the only time you will catch me in a sweater vest is if the bear I am wrestling rips my sleeves off.I won’t use face cream on the lines at the corners of my eyes, but I will laugh with you to put them there.I will go on a shopping date with you, but we won’t be hitting the same stores.I’ll be sexual, but not metrosexual.I’ll be Frasier at the opera, but Martin in the living room.I will open your door, chop your wood, change your tire and pump your gas. Not because you are not capable, but because we are not the same.I will go do stuff with the guys, not instead of you, but when you are also doing your own thing.Keep your mascara, thanks.You can order whatever your heart desires. I’ll be having steak.You should have all the same opportunities that I do, but I will not become you to make that happen.I’ll be your wolf or your shepherd, but never your puppy.One can be loud and strong and stubborn without treating someone poorly.You will never have to think twice about walking on a dark street if I am with you. The last stand of man begins here. This far, and no further.

idiot. feminism has got nothing to do with who does the hard physical labor. it's about a particular category of people (mostly males) have come to shape the world only to their hearts' [and genitals'] desires and values, in the process building a society that is sexist and one-sided to their preferences.

Really great, it's been interesting for me personally to see how in danish culture feminism is another word for being unfeminine, asexual and left wing. The only battle of sexes here is moreso a battle against both sexes, where the beauty of Ying & Yang is destroyed by unattractive, obese women in cellars on the internet.

Obviously it's a man's world, and always will be. Women will always stand in the shadow of man, and no amount of social engineering can change that fact. Women need to learn the facts of life, and accept them like mature adults.

Megan, please tell me your wordy comment is satire... You really aren't serious that "Women are better at peace making, social issues, humanities, psychology, healing, ect." are you? Peace making?? What the heck are soap operas about? And healing?? Just ask the millions of unborn babies you murdered. And "Maybe women would take more pride in their roles, if their roles weren't put int a way by men that seems weak, demeaning, and brainless"?? Are you kidding me? It was Betty Freidan who told you women in 1964 in her book "The Feminine Mystique" that being a mother was demeaning and being a wife is slavery to a man and that is exactly the stupidities that you women keep telling each other and then blame men for saying it. We men know how important being a wife and mother is to us, our children, and to the survival of humanity.

You're believing feminist fantasies, Megan. And it sounds like your boyfriend needs to be the man, marry you, and dominate. Only then will you snap into the truth that men really want to love their women, but that women don't want to love their men.

And you foolish feminist women: don't even bother to respond or you will exactly prove my point.

@paladinrja1 "No species on this earth has been more appreciated or loved than human women" - What???

Around the world at least one woman in every three has been beaten,
coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Every year,
violence in the home and the community devastates the lives of millions
of women. Violence against women is rooted in a global culture of
discrimination which denies women equal rights with men and which
legitimizes the appropriation of women's bodies for individual
gratification or political ends.

@AdaMussina "Women and men in general are equal" - this is an awful, ii-thought out platitude. We are very different.. Differences have been noted in the behaviour of babies just a few weeks old.

To make your point that women and men as individuals are different, you compare a supposed, virtual saint with a serial killer.I suspect your doing so is to re-reinforce the feminist narrative that women are good and men are evil. Incidentally, 'Mother' Teresa presided over great suffering when she was in the position where she could have arrange for medical intervention to alleviate it and justified this evil by claiming it supposedly bring the sufferers closer to God.

@HaydenAshman "Feminism is about human beings" - I guess the clue is in the word feminism itself which relates exclusively to human beings? As a feminist you surely would object to the phrase "mankind" yet you glibly and deceitfully subsume the needs of all of humankind under a movement that is dedicated by definition to the self-interest of women only. When rich people tell poor people not to complain because of the crumbs they receive from the banquet table then at least there is some truth to that, but feminism gives nothing to men.

@HaydenAshman on the contrary there are any number of raging man-hater's who also happen to be feminists. They are the stereotypical self-hating jews of the modern age, overcome with guilt for their association with violence they never authored and a phallus they've never misused. BTW she does address the point you make about female exclusion from professions: the social division of labour. The fact that women may perform better at certain traditionally male tasks than some men doesn't mean it was less rational in bygone ages to have a gendered division of labour that met the needs of that society. That gendered division of labour may or may not have been optimal - but its wrong to conflate optimal with social progress imperatives that have no necessary to connexion with what is optimal. Paglia's point is that latter day feminism is resentful and contemptuous of a male civilization that excluded them in various / structural ways. Such resentment / contempt only makes sense if it could and should have been otherwise. What Paglia points to and which feminism's resentment (played out every day in demands for restitution) fails to acknowledge is the fact that the very possibility of feminism depends on a civilization that was overwhelmingly built by men, and which had it not be constructed in that way would have ensured that feminism remained a pipe-dream.

@tim14 she may be many things, but idiot isn't one of them. She has made a perfectly sane and rational case for why women benefited from 'male dominated societies', namely that in important ways they were reciprocal, and met the needs of women for protection and safety. Feminism picks out evidence to advance the non-reciprocity of gender relations in traditional societies and it brooks no opposition where its - typically marxist - description of dominated, oppressed females and oppressor males - is contradicted or even softened.

@tim14 A few males succeed brilliantly. On the other hand, many men occupy the lowest, dirtiest, deadliest rungs of society. Historically, it was a trade-off between more limited opportunities vs greater protection and safety. Overall, hard to argue that the average woman had it worse than the average man.

@George_Rock says - "Obviously it's a man's world, and always will be. Women will always
stand in the shadow of man, and no amount of social engineering can
change that fact. Women need to learn the facts of life, and accept
them like mature adults".

Do you realize that Betty Friedan only asked her personal friends and friends of her personal friends of higher incomes, what their lives were like after they were persuaded to go to college to "get a man"? She NEVER asked women of all incomes or ethnic groups, therefore her study is seriously flawed. As far as soap operas go, why are those shows directed towards women who stay home? Because this is the only "adult" voices they hear during the day until their men come home from work. The question you SHOULD be asking is WHO is directing this towards women--the big wig males who dominate TV programming. These are men who assume they know who we are as women which I find disrespectful. We have been told for centuries who we are supposed to be by advertising run by men.

Sorry you are having a hard time with this. True feminists don't. We won't have a hard time with your insults either. You are entitled to your opinion of which is only YOUR opinion. Anytime you wish to see the real world...

@montanaman91 "And you foolish feminist women: don't even bother to respond or you will exactly prove my point". Hmmm, so in other words, shut up, don't bother expressing an opinion or another point of view because I'm right and you are all wrong. Well thanks genius, whatever would we women do without such brilliant men explaining to to us how all of life and relationships function. I'll just go back to my childhood princess fairytale books now and forget that I ever dared to have an opinion.

@billybobmcmanus In its purest form, Feminism works towards dismantling the age old social and political structure of Patriarchy. As a universal structure, Patriarchy privileges men over women, on the whole, but it also elevates well off, white, heterosexual men above all other men, as well. If you'd care to research it properly, before making uninformed comments, you will find that Feminism's main aim is to change this structure, so that both women and men, of all persuasions, can gain equal opportunities, access and a fair go in every aspect of life.

A rose under any other name smells just as sweet, but know this, Humanist is an atheist blanket belief. Can you find a better name that all can understand without negative connotations? One that focuses on elevating women to a just and equal position to men and helping men take of the facade forced on each them, but yet recognizing physical differences in law such as abortion, and that men can't abort because it costs that taxpayers, while when a woman does it it costs the taxpayers nothing (however, I believe life begins at conception, but that's not the debate here, because women can still use a hanger...)? Although men get into more trouble when they hit, such as the amount of physical damage done when someone hits another (medical bills).

Did you know that the etymology of the word woman means wife man, and that if a woman is not married, she is actually just a man? How backwards is our modern world...

We benefit from a male ran society because men protect us from other men...

A woman actually invented the circular saw, and we would still be doing our own construction, and the modern tools, don't need physical strength anymore. I trim my own trees. I change my own tire. I lay my own flooring. I assemble my own furniture. I don't understand why we have to need you anymore, but I don't understand why men can't just be happy with the fact that we WANT you around.

@YummyProsciutto@tim14 - so you'd prefer to be cut to pieces on the battlefield while saving your country, homestead, family from destruction, than suffer the humiliation of baking cakes in a rudimentary aga-free kitchen. Life was hard for everybody in the past. Men died in battle. Women died in childbirth. Other bad things happened to both sexes.

@JaneFlaherty You're very uneducated aren't you? I model in my off time (my stats: 5'2 101lbs), work for a fortune 500 company at the age of 23 and am brilliant (just got a full ride to Harvard)....Maybe you're just such a loser that you need to learn to read a little bit better to understand what REAL feminists are about... and actually that word is ugly so I don't utter it, I personally am an equalist..not people who simply don't believe inequality....to me, feminazis are paradoxes because they aren't promoting what they are voicing that they are trying to promote....sorry.

@Mauz@billybobmcmanus That's the problem with the feminist view of Patriarchy. Patriarchy wasn't crafted to give men more power over women. Men have had power over women from the beginning. Men have never needed laws and traditions to get women to do what they wanted, with a few exceptions, any man can compel any woman to do anything by brute force. The only thing that can stop him is other men, or a social structure with men as its prime enforcers.

Patriarchy was crafted to encourage men to take care of children. Without the obligations inherent in patriarchy, the human species would not have survived. Those societies that did not embrace patriarchy were overrun or died out.

@LisaBuchanan I have a name: equalist. Men and women treated as sentient, intelligent beings, while also taking into account the biological differences of each. Beyond that I have no response to your comment because the rest is such bad grammar that I don't even know what you're trying to say.

#1 protect you from other men...yeah, so a thanks would be nice, or maybe you can fight them yourselves. You need bacteria to protect you from other bacteria too.

#2. You trim trees and change tires. I don't know how to say this, but you don't have the slightest inkling of the complexity and herculean engineering it takes to deliver the infrastructure that allows you to make such an unknowingly modest statement.

#3 We are needed, and you just can't see it. That is what is so maddening. We cannot just be happy with a lie. You want your dogs around....get it?